devjohnson
Active Member
^ Not terrible. At least it's consistant unlike the mess of a mural across the street.
|
|
|
Church-Wellesley Village
- Thread starter dt_toronto_geek
- Start date
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Why can't they just be a permanently installed fixture? Reinstalling/rebuilding them every year seems rather wasteful to me.
Anyways I'd hate to see these things go. I was really hoping that we'd see them elsewhere throughout the city (perhaps better executed than these).
Last edited:
Peepers
Banned
I think that the problem was the benefits of these park-lets was not equally felt by ALL businesses along Church Street.
For the handful of restaurants - such as Byzantium - who suddenly had a large patio outside their restaurant this had to have created a huge boon in business. For others such as Cumbraes which depend on the availability of parking for their customers who come from across the city these park-lets offered no benefits in fact they probably hurt business.
A question that I had is what if anything did the city receive from the restaurants granted outdoor patio's in the way of rent? Knowing how expensive rent is on Church street (e.g. rent for the 24/7 video store is $19,000 a month!) these outdoor patio's had to be worth something to the city. Did the city get any rent? What about the loss of revenue from the parking spots covered over?
This is a question that I put to KWT in an email but despite a couple of reminders she still hasn't reply (despite having a staff of four to return emails!).
She spearheaded these park-lets and if a handful of restaurants were given the exclusive use of city property free of charge the question has to be raised why? If in fact these restaurants received free use of the outdoor patio's this to me is something of a mini-scandal for KWT.
Last edited:
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
I'm sure I read a couple of months ago that there was a fee imposed for each business, but I don't remember how much it was. It's a shame they couldn't balance it out and do the west side of the street next summer.
CanadianNational
Senior Member
They were too small to function as patios, and if they were meant to be 'parklets' well - no room on them for substantial greenery, either.
The first major problem with them, IMO, was that they were installed late in the summer. Very late. So by the time the darn things were in, no one was particularly desirous of using them. Bare as they were. If they had been installed earlier, with more generous planting, they might have looked more inviting, and people might have had time to get used to them as spring turned to summer.
The second problem I had with them were the walls between them. Those walls shouldn't have been there.
As a north-south boardwalk/patio, with the west side wall protecting pedestrians from traffic, the parklets would have worked far better. The walls between them made them so cramped, hardly anything could be done. There was no flow, no ease. As an extension outwards of Church Street's infamously narrow sidewalks, they would have been truly useful. They could still be painted different colours to show which business it section lined up with.
I love the idea of expanded sidewalks on church - with mature trees, street furniture, postering kiosks, gorgeous lighting, the works. The parklets were badly handled, but they represent at least a step towards the idea that Chruch Street is more powerful as a pedestrain destination than an automobile drivethrough.
The first major problem with them, IMO, was that they were installed late in the summer. Very late. So by the time the darn things were in, no one was particularly desirous of using them. Bare as they were. If they had been installed earlier, with more generous planting, they might have looked more inviting, and people might have had time to get used to them as spring turned to summer.
The second problem I had with them were the walls between them. Those walls shouldn't have been there.
As a north-south boardwalk/patio, with the west side wall protecting pedestrians from traffic, the parklets would have worked far better. The walls between them made them so cramped, hardly anything could be done. There was no flow, no ease. As an extension outwards of Church Street's infamously narrow sidewalks, they would have been truly useful. They could still be painted different colours to show which business it section lined up with.
I love the idea of expanded sidewalks on church - with mature trees, street furniture, postering kiosks, gorgeous lighting, the works. The parklets were badly handled, but they represent at least a step towards the idea that Chruch Street is more powerful as a pedestrain destination than an automobile drivethrough.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
I agree with some of your points CN. Another problem were the bike racks, it wasn't difficult for a person to accidentally "rack" themselves up in the family jewels (I did) because of all the added visual stimulation that the parklets created. I liked the parklets if for no other reason that they proved we need more public space for pedestrians and yes, they should have been in place much earlier, like after Pride was over, and the barriers between each is a great point too. More to the point, we clearly need our sidewalks widened on many downtown streets. It won't happen under Ford but I really think that the Councillors and Planners need to look at permanently improving the public realm on downtown streets that have high pedestrian movement and where sidewalks are not wide enough. I'm thinking Parliament, Jarvis, Church, Yonge, Queen and King Sts. Could one-way streets be the answer? Perhaps. Along with trees and patios, adding safe, protected bike lanes to some of these streets should also be a priority. Sherbourne and St. George as north-south bicycle corridors is no where near satisfactory coverage.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
That mural is ugly and gaudy.
cdr108
Senior Member
http://dailyxtra.com/toronto/news/two-church-street-mainstays-sold-will-stay-the-strip?market=207
is that you Kevin Brown ...
if not, you 2 should meet and have a hate-fest for KWT
Canadian Chocho
Active Member
Since the Village appears to have an appreciation for murals, I would love to see Eduardo Kobra do something there, or in another neighbourhood of the city. He seems to be gaining popularity around the world, and quite rightly so.
devjohnson
Active Member
!!!!!!
I'm assuming the idea of pushing parklets is temporary until we get funding for reducing Church to two lanes.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
I've never heard of any plan to reduce traffic lanes on Church St. Jarvis Street was slated to be reduced to five lanes and sidewalks widened but bike lanes were the chosen option until financing was in place.
Register123
Active Member
But everyone has the right to work in these lounges, and also has the right to a smoke free environment as a worker, this is the reason for government imposed smoke free laws.
ttk77
Senior Member
If I recall correctly though (it's been about 10 years since I last tried hookah), tobacco is not used. I'm not sure how the law applies to that. There must also be, or at least have been, an exception to that rule. Again about 10 years ago I did a university co-op work term at imperial tobacco in Guelph, and while it was clear in every other workplace that I'd been in that smoking in the workplace was prohibited by law, those that smoked felt quite free to do so while at their desks there.
DTowner
Active Member
Mystic Point
Active Member
More awful junk for the Village. These murals - especially the one under creation at C&W on the drug store - are the new pornography.
I imagine up and coming village visual themes to include rainbows, obelisks, unicorns and teddy bears.
I imagine up and coming village visual themes to include rainbows, obelisks, unicorns and teddy bears.
Last edited: